The Advocate

The Hysteria of the Obvious:
Why Ward Churchill is Getting Under Everybody's Skin

Spencer Sunshine
There are a variety of disturbing elements in the recent attempt to remove controversial Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill from his tenured position at the University of Colorado-Boulder. The foremost of these is that his comments, which ignited the current maelstrom, regard the September 11th massacre.

September 11th has been made into the ideological lynchpin for the new series of global wars which the Bush administration has instigated in an attempt to retain the US’s position as global alpha dog – the vaunted Lone Superpower. According to our recently re-elected demagogue, September 11th was an “attack on freedom” by “evil-doers,” a result of a “clash of civilizations” which requires a “new crusade.” To refute this reading, as is now becoming apparent, is to be labeled a terrorist.

Ward Churchill has simply pointed out the obvious, indeed what every educated person knows: that the suicide-hijackings of 9/11 were the work of college-educated men angered at the continuing US military and economic domination of the Middle East. Sure, there were also religious and cultural elements at play. But there is a reason the attacks were on the US, and not at a much easier target in Europe, the traditional home of Christendom. Indeed, the two targets were specifically symbols of military (Pentagon) and economic (World Trade Center) power - not religious or cultural icons. If they “hated freedom,” why did they attack a financial center and not, say, the Statue of Liberty? Or attack Holland for that matter, a country whose social freedoms far outstrip our own?

The September 11th massacre is not defensible, and no one should attempt to act as an apologist for it; but that it is inexcusable does not make it unintelligible. The Right has done everything in its power to obscure the understanding of the attacks as a political phenomena. For example, immediately after the attack, Osama bin Laden issued a statement announcing that Al Qaeda would cease attacks if three conditions were met: that the US withdraw its military from Saudi Arabia, that the embargo on Iraq be lifted, and that the US cease its support for the occupation of Palestine. Bush, in reply, pressured domestic news agencies to blackout bin Laden’s communiqués.

For pointing out the obvious about the nature of the attacks, the governors of two states, New York and Colorado, have taken Churchill’s words out of context and slandered him as a “bigoted terrorist supporter” (Pataki) who is “pro-terrorist” (Owens). The University of Colorado board of regents wants to negate both his Constitutional and academic rights in order to remove him. Near-hysteria over Churchill’s existence reigns in the Right-wing media – but also in the center, and even on part of the Left.

The reason for this reaction is actually quite clear, if not immediately apparent – Americans are incapable of admitting that we ourselves may have been the catalyst for 9/11. Not just by the actions of our “leaders,” but by the everyday life of those of us who live in the “West” – Ward Churchill included (as he admits). From cheap gas to new clothes every season, SUV and Hummers in every garage to bananas in the winter, it is not just the question of a corrupt US economic and military elite, as vulgar Leftists sometimes argue. It is a system of hyper-consumption and wealth that is ultimately based on the domination of the global North – but particularly the US – over the Middle East, Latin American, Asia and Africa.

We cannot admit that it is the material American “way of life” itself that is ultimately culpable for this massacre. (This is not to be confused with the wonderful cultural, intellectual and religious freedoms which we usually enjoy despite the Right’s continual attempts to abolish them, as we are witnessing at this moment).

Americans are incapable of accepting the possibility that the blood may be on own our own hands – not just that, we are incapable of even considering the possibility of it. If Churchill’s comments were so outrageous, so ridiculous, why the hysterical reaction? Why don’t people merely say, ‘Oh, he’s just a bitter man who hates America’? Why do people threaten his life instead of calmly replying that, ‘No, here are 1-2-3-4 reasons that US finance bankers are nothing like Eichmann.’ It’s obvious that something else is at play here.

Were Churchill’s remarks inflammatory? Yes. Is he an insensitive jerk? Sure. Does he overgeneralize? Probably. Is his metaphor sloppy and inexact? Absolutely. Is he essentially correct? Yes. No “war on terrorism” will ever make Americans safe; only lifting the boot from the face of the Middle East can do that. But - despite a rare moment of lucidity after 9/11 when some Americans uncharacteristically asked ‘Why do they hate us?’ – the possibility of dismantling the global empire is far more distant now than ever before.

It is not the inflammatory remarks of a little-known radical scholar which are causing this controversy. Rather, it is the pain of a truth we cannot bear to admit that has driven America into its current hysteria.